"in scientism there is no place for consciousness, no place for humans to feel like the universe is constructed for them and stroking their egos bla bla bla, evolution is psudo-religion, fap fap".."we have descended from the perfect archetype". No room for transcendence at all with stupidity like this. Give me evolution.

In fact, science can 'redisover the sacred', which is a phrase this guy parrots about regularly, by realising we are permeated with the same energy as suns and that, possibly, something has come from nothing.

In future please take the time to address these points seriously, rather than simply use some superficial details as an attempt to create controversy. Considering the nature of your post, I do not feel particularly inclined to offer you a serious reply, but for the sake of others here I will do so. Before I begin I should say that it is incorrect to assume that the traditionalist criticisms of evolution and similar modern theories are made on the same level as those coming from fundamentalist religious circles. Although it is evident that these two are related, the traditionalist position rests on the assertion that the modern theory of evolution exists for two reasons...

1. To explain the origins of man in the absence of metaphysical knowledge which had been lost in the West, due to the world view described by Nasr in the video.2. It was popularized and became dogmatically enforced because it helped to support the doctrine of progress which in turn helps to justify the errors of modern man.

Evolutionism...provides a typical example of reasoning in the absence of sufficient evidence. Modern science starts from the gratuitous and crude axiom that there is no reality outside sensorial...experience...and since it starts out from this axiom it will reason in accordance therewith, leaving out of account evidence that surpasses it. Now in the case of a reality that does surpass the sensorial and empirical order, any such reasoning must evidently be false...and it will demonstrate its falsity by replacing the missing evidence with purely functional hypotheses.

I would rather not discuss this matter further in this thread, there has already been a discussion regarding the traditionalist position on evolution in this forum and little progress was made. If you would like to continue this part of the discussion I will begin a new thread.

The second point regards the metaphysical significance of man. Far from being a simple egoism, it addresses the fundamental nature of man as he is prefigured in reality as such. The full extension of the possibilities contained within the human state allow for the transcendence of the individual and corporeal states to which he is confined by the dominant understanding of reality described by Nasr. The understanding of the universe which predominates in Westernized civilization, reduces man purely to his 'horizontal' extension, in which he is reduced to nothingness in the face of a lifeless cosmos. The vertical extension of man's being is completely unknown to modern man. Traditional man, on the other hand, begins from what is known inwardly and intuitively, the certainties of being and consciousness, and proceeds to apply these principles to the cosmic environment, which is not so concrete as modern man believes it to be but is rather a crystallization of possibilities which transcend the corporeal state.

I suggest reading and attempting to understand the metaphysical content of particularly the work of Rene Guenon and Frithjof Schuon before attempting to criticize the traditionalist position on more or less superficial grounds.

A good place to start would be Nasr's lecture titled In the Beginning was Consciousness, which bears similarities to the lecture you have linked but underlines in more detail some of the logical inconsistencies in the modern understanding of what reality is.

In future please take the time to address these points seriously, rather than simply use some superficial details as an attempt to create controversy. Considering the nature of your post, I do not feel particularly inclined to offer you a serious reply, but for the sake of others here I will do so.

Thank you for your response Eleison. With all due respect, I find it hard to have sympathy for offending your taste for polite and complete commentary when the precedent around here is as follows:

The right masturbates just as much as the left only in different ways. Both accuse each other of the same things: irrationality, delusional thinking, an inability to perceive reality, having ego driven behavior.

Quote

George Lakoff theorizes that conservatives interpret reality through metaphors and meta-narratives modeled after authoritarian family structures. Drew Westen argues that they interpret facts according to emotionally based investments in conclusions they already hold, bypassing cortical centers of reason altogether.

Here's what I think is going on: People in our culture have an inherent resistance to feeling helpless, victimized, and in need of protection, care, and help. This resistance takes many forms, some of which promote hostility toward government in general and toward liberal and humanistic political agendas like health care reform in particular.

Feelings of helplessness and dependency can feel toxic. We all naturally tend to take responsibility for our lot in life. We want to feel that we choose our lives, that we have some inalienable and existential freedom to determine our present and future, that we are actors and agents.

On the left you can be an attractive rebel, wear a cool mask and light shit on fire. On the right you can have a badass beard and an elaborate control fantasy with millions of peons to dominate. Sure arson and slave sodomy make for good times but lets not pretend that placing them in a political context somehow causes them to transcend base animal behavior. Real political discourse should be as dry, technical, unemotional, boring and uninteresting as economics yet it never is.

Although it is evident that these two are related, the traditionalist position rests on the assertion that the modern theory of evolution exists for two reasons...

1. To explain the origins of man in the absence of metaphysical knowledge which had been lost in the West, due to the world view described by Nasr in the video.2. It was popularized and became dogmatically enforced because it helped to support the doctrine of progress which in turn helps to justify the errors of modern man.

[...]

I would rather not discuss this matter further in this thread, there has already been a discussion regarding the traditionalist position on evolution in this forum and little progress was made. If you would like to continue this part of the discussion I will begin a new thread.

1.- The possibility of God is not logically incompatible with evolution.2.- The cause of the theory of evolution was not to support progress, that's teleology, and teleology is dismissed in evolutionary biology.

As you shouldn't confuse fundamentalism with Intelligent Design, you shouldn't confuse evolutionary biology with humanism.

If there was little progress in that thread, it was because of the withdrawal of traditionalists, I must say.

1.- The possibility of God is not logically incompatible with evolution.2.- The cause of the theory of evolution was not to support progress, that's teleology, and teleology is dismissed in evolutionary biology.

As you shouldn't confuse fundamentalism with Intelligent Design, you shouldn't confuse evolutionary biology with humanism.

The question is not reducible to theistic propositions. Traditionalists fully support an a-theistic religion like Buddhism but reject evolution. This has more to do the the traditionalist understanding of the metaphysical origins of man. Traditionalists believe that the world is simply an outward expression of permanent spiritual realities, not a quasi-absolute domain which was created at a particular time by a limited theistic God and subsequently left to its own devices. Traditionalists reject deism entirely.

On the second point I was careful to note that the idea of progress was not the cause of evolutionary theory, but aided its popularity and its takeover of the intellectual life of the West. The primary reason is still that as soon as a plausible theory was put forward to explain the origins of life purely in terms of material processes it was instantly accepted as the traditional account of the origins of creatures had been reduced to a dogmatic formulation, the inner meaning of which had been lost at that time.

It has been suggested by some traditionalists, that evolutionary biology may not be entirely inaccurate, purely as an outward description of the process of the materialization of creatures. Even this is problematic as it allows those with a modern understanding of reality to circumvent the actual cause of this process, which in turn leads to a complete misunderstanding of what creatures are. This gives birth to, for example, the idea that man could evolve to a higher state of being, which is to utterly lose sight of what man is. This is made to seem more likely, by the fact that man is now closer to his animal nature than he has ever been. Even this hypothesis is unlikely and the dangers inherent in the theory outweigh any value it may or may not have as a descriptive account.

The question is not reducible to theistic propositions. Traditionalists fully support an a-theistic religion like Buddhism but reject evolution. This has more to do the the traditionalist understanding of the metaphysical origins of man. Traditionalists believe that the world is simply an outward expression of permanent spiritual realities, not a quasi-absolute domain which was created at a particular time by a limited theistic God and subsequently left to its own devices. Traditionalists reject deism entirely.

Stills, God (the Trascendental Absolute) doesn't have to be, logically, a limited theistic reality for evolution to occur. It is not logically contradictory.

Quote

On the second point I was careful to note that the idea of progress was not the cause of evolutionary theory, but aided its popularity and its takeover of the intellectual life of the West. The primary reason is still that as soon as a plausible theory was put forward to explain the origins of life purely in terms of material processes it was instantly accepted as the traditional account of the origins of creatures had been reduced to a dogmatic formulation, the inner meaning of which had been lost at that time.

Related to my previous assertion: evolutionary theory can't tell if the purely material processes are actually purely material. Contemporary science (I don't say modern, because modern is a misleading term for this purspose) looks what it can look for, the material, if there's something behind the material, evolutionary theory is unable to see it. Contemporary science is OK with that limit, being unable to see the immaterial is not a problem for evolutionary biology . Now, if you know which and specially, how, non-material processes affect the variety of material life, let me know.

Quote

It has been suggested by some traditionalists, that evolutionary biology may not be entirely inaccurate, purely as an outward description of the process of the materialization of creatures.

Great. Which traditionalists? and how evolutionary biology would be just partially inaccurate?

The question is not reducible to theistic propositions. Traditionalists fully support an a-theistic religion like Buddhism but reject evolution. This has more to do the the traditionalist understanding of the metaphysical origins of man. Traditionalists believe that the world is simply an outward expression of permanent spiritual realities, not a quasi-absolute domain which was created at a particular time by a limited theistic God and subsequently left to its own devices. Traditionalists reject deism entirely.

Stills, God (the Trascendental Absolute) doesn't have to be, logically, a limited theistic reality for evolution to occur. It is not logically contradictory.

I don't disagree, but this does not really address the reason why traditionalists reject evolutionary theory.

Great. Which traditionalists? and how evolutionary biology would be just partially inaccurate?

I was referring to this article, it answers both questions. Keep in mind that I find that this article already makes too many concessions to modern science, my view is closer to the one expressed here.

I was referring to this article, it answers both questions. Keep in mind that I find that this article already makes too many concessions to modern science, my view is closer to the one expressed here.

The first article doesn't really address evolutionary biology, but rather gives a comparative view of darwinian change, and change from a disembodied point of view. It may tell something about the spiritual interpretation of darwinism (I would need to give it a more detailed read on this in order to discuss this aspect) but not about evolutionary biology itself.

The second article.

Quote

...evolution has never been proved by anybody whatsoever, and with good reason; transformist evolution is accepted as a useful and provisional postulate, as one will accept no matter what, provided no obligation is felt to accept the primacy of the Immaterial since the latter escapes the control of our senses. `

There are many proofs of evolution. A strong one: genetic commonalities. There's continuum among the species. We can know, that we are closely related to the apes. We can go in detail if you have objections about this...

Schuon talks about emanation. I ask you, how emanation could explain genetic commonalities?

If you don't believe in modification by natural selection, you are a moron.

Explain how the aids epidemic comes about if modification through natural selection isn't a reality? The virus' lifecycle is so short that it goes through many generations quickly. Those few individuals (viruses) who have mutated a resistance to a medicine survive and soon this strain reaches population levels and the aids virus is resistant to the newest medication. It's a perpetual arms race against medicine and natural selection.

1.- The possibility of God is not logically incompatible with evolution.2.- The cause of the theory of evolution was not to support progress, that's teleology, and teleology is dismissed in evolutionary biology.

As you shouldn't confuse fundamentalism with Intelligent Design, you shouldn't confuse evolutionary biology with humanism.

The question is not reducible to theistic propositions. Traditionalists fully support an a-theistic religion like Buddhism but reject evolution.

That is why traditionalists have a tendency to lean towards being ostrich intellectuals, at least when it comes to ontology or the study of what is. They reject certian theories because these theories might exclude some other tenants the traditionalist holds on to, not because the theories themselves are unjustified by the evidence or logic.

On the second point I was careful to note that the idea of progress was not the cause of evolutionary theory, but aided its popularity and its takeover of the intellectual life of the West. The primary reason is still that as soon as a plausible theory was put forward to explain the origins of life purely in terms of material processes it was instantly accepted as the traditional account of the origins of creatures had been reduced to a dogmatic formulation, the inner meaning of which had been lost at that time.

It has been suggested by some traditionalists, that evolutionary biology may not be entirely inaccurate, purely as an outward description of the process of the materialization of creatures. Even this is problematic as it allows those with a modern understanding of reality to circumvent the actual cause of this process, which in turn leads to a complete misunderstanding of what creatures are. This gives birth to, for example, the idea that man could evolve to a higher state of being, which is to utterly lose sight of what man is. This is made to seem more likely, by the fact that man is now closer to his animal nature than he has ever been. Even this hypothesis is unlikely and the dangers inherent in the theory outweigh any value it may or may not have as a descriptive account.

Can you please expand on what the conflict is between evolution by natural selection and traditionalism regarding the nature (cause, 'essence', operation, goal...) of human beings? I'm interested.

Ah, so this is where I found Nasr - how absolutely wonderful, that the person who should introduce me to such an influence should be the person to whom I would gift such influence.

Bill, you must understand Tradition as progressing from the "internal" dimension of certitude to the "external" dimension of possibility, when it is dealing with what is. As such, if a theory (a possibility) contradicts a certitude, the theory cannot obtain. I'm withholding my position on evolution, because it is not yet complete; suffice it to say that to judge another's method by one's own is the solipsism you keep haranguing us about!

Your method assumes that what is external is real; ours assumes that what is internal must be real before anything external could have a hope of being so. Going "within" oneself, certain universal truths are discovered, which might not only be counterintuitive, but might outright contradict the apparent nature of the "external". Still, truth is truth, and it can be known to be so by the seeker.

The question is not reducible to theistic propositions. Traditionalists fully support an a-theistic religion like Buddhism but reject evolution.

That is why traditionalists have a tendency to lean towards being ostrich intellectuals, at least when it comes to ontology or the study of what is. They reject certian theories because these theories might exclude some other tenants the traditionalist holds on to, not because the theories themselves are unjustified by the evidence or logic.

I'm not really sure how this follows from what I said. Traditionalists both accept Buddhism and reject evolution for concrete reasons. The main point I was trying to get across was that the traditionalist rejection of the theory of evolution has nothing to do with an alliance to any of the monotheistic religions, although traditionalists, unlike many participants on this forum, do consider the Abrahamic religions to be authentic traditions and vehicles of Truth.

On the second point I was careful to note that the idea of progress was not the cause of evolutionary theory, but aided its popularity and its takeover of the intellectual life of the West. The primary reason is still that as soon as a plausible theory was put forward to explain the origins of life purely in terms of material processes it was instantly accepted as the traditional account of the origins of creatures had been reduced to a dogmatic formulation, the inner meaning of which had been lost at that time.

It has been suggested by some traditionalists, that evolutionary biology may not be entirely inaccurate, purely as an outward description of the process of the materialization of creatures. Even this is problematic as it allows those with a modern understanding of reality to circumvent the actual cause of this process, which in turn leads to a complete misunderstanding of what creatures are. This gives birth to, for example, the idea that man could evolve to a higher state of being, which is to utterly lose sight of what man is. This is made to seem more likely, by the fact that man is now closer to his animal nature than he has ever been. Even this hypothesis is unlikely and the dangers inherent in the theory outweigh any value it may or may not have as a descriptive account.

Can you please expand on what the conflict is between evolution by natural selection and traditionalism regarding the nature (cause, 'essence', operation, goal...) of human beings? I'm interested.

Firstly, traditionalists do reject natural selection, which is self-evident, or the modification of a species by natural selection. What traditionalists reject outright is the assertion that all biological diversity is a production of the modification of species in this way. On the contrary, for the traditionalist, every species is an emanation of a metaphysical archetype and it is really only the loss of a metaphysical understanding of reality that has led people to try and invent a theory which would account for biological life in the absence of supernatural causes.

This is especially significant with regard to the particular nature of man, who alone is gifted with an intelligence capable of a realization of his metaphysical essence whilst remaining in the manifest world and is thus the central point of this world, since he opens onto the Absolute, and is capable of sanctifying it, by becoming the manifest presence of the Absolute in the world. The theory of evolution, by positing a material origin of man completely obliterates man's inward nature and sanctity, thereby removing all metaphysical compulsion to act in accordance with his higher nature. It is of no coincidence that a materialist understanding of reality is directly linked to moral and intellectual decadence and ecocide.

Firstly, traditionalists do reject natural selection, which is self-evident, or the modification of a species by natural selection. What traditionalists reject outright is the assertion that all biological diversity is a production of the modification of species in this way. On the contrary, for the traditionalist, every species is an emanation of a metaphysical archetype and it is really only the loss of a metaphysical understanding of reality that has led people to try and invent a theory which would account for biological life in the absence of supernatural causes.

This is especially significant with regard to the particular nature of man, who alone is gifted with an intelligence capable of a realization of his metaphysical essence whilst remaining in the manifest world and is thus the central point of this world, since he opens onto the Absolute, and is capable of sanctifying it, by becoming the manifest presence of the Absolute in the world. The theory of evolution, by positing a material origin of man completely obliterates man's inward nature and sanctity, thereby removing all metaphysical compulsion to act in accordance with his higher nature. It is of no coincidence that a materialist understanding of reality is directly linked to moral and intellectual decadence and ecocide.

Not to preempt our discussions on other threads at all, but related to this matter, do you realise how bad your comments sound? How anti-intellectual?

You offer no account of how the emprical evidence for evolution does not vindicate evolution. You offer no account of how wrong conclusions are being drawn from the evidence. You simply hold 'evolution is wrong because it would contradicts x y and z'. This is basically your position. I'm not socrates, but I don't think something is wrong just because it contradicts some other propositions. Especially not when there is evidence that those other propositions need to be dropped. Such evidence includes. *clears throat*:

Who cares if traditionalism sees every sepcies as an 'emination of a metaphysical archetype'? If we're talking facts and how reality is, and if the facts of reality overturn this perception, then this perceptions has been overturned!

Quote

The theory of evolution, by positing a material origin of man completely obliterates man's inward nature and sanctity, thereby removing all metaphysical compulsion to act in accordance with his higher nature. It is of no coincidence that a materialist understanding of reality is directly linked to moral and intellectual decadence and ecocide.

Well this means NEW philosophers and free spirits are going to have to create a noble account of man's nature FROM THE NEW FACTS. There is something extremely embarassing about clinging to arcane notions because you can't bear to face the consequences? Don't other people think (yes you, reading this)?

I'm mostly sold on evolution, but there is some empirical evidence to the contrary. Take for instance the flagellum, the 'tail' on certain kinds of bacteria that allows them to swim around. The flagellum is an irreducibly complex biological mechanism, which means that its parts, in and of themselves, are worthless. Only when all parts are in place does it serve any function. All or nothing, in other words. Thus, it is unlikely that these parts of the flagellum could ever be evolved and compounded upon as they would provide no advantage in fitness by themselves. On the other hand, odds of evolving an entire flagellum in one mutation are extremely slim, due to genetic factors I don't fully understand. So, what accounts for these irreducibly complex systems if Darwinian evolution is supposed to be incremental? Archetypes would be a convenient explanation.